As a favor to a friend: Sikhs are not Muslim terrorists!

[Guest]

On Monday night, a good friend of mine that I used to work with when I lived in Pittsburgh had a very disturbing incident. He was walking to his car with his wife after a late dinner and they were threatened by three men. They confronted them at their car and asked what they were doing in America and called him a "raghead who will soon be a dead raghead". Another group of people then entered parking lot and the men left, saying they would "get them" the next time they saw them. Fortunately, this about 30 miles north of Pittsburgh near a town called Butler, so the chances of them ever returning there are slim, as they were on their way home from Niagara Falls.

My reason for posting this is for educational purposes, and hopefully I am preaching to the choir here. These people are sikhs, a religion based in India. The men wear turbans as part of their religion. They generally were very Western dress - for example, it was nothing for this guy to show up on casual days in a Steeler sweatshirt and a black and gold turban. He also wore a red white and blue turban in honor of his new home. He very much loves the United States. They also wear rather bushy beards, which I suppose also makes people think they are terrorists. Although I guess bushy beards would also make Hank Jr., Charlie Daniels and Rick Rubin terrorists.

Unfortunately, in our frustration over the 9/11 attacks, there are some of us who think like a sledgehammer. These unfortunates see a turban and think "Muslim terrorist". The Sikh religion is completely different and these people are not enemies of the state. There has never been an instance of these people committing attacks on America, nor do they want to. Additionally, the 9/11 attacks saddened them as much as it saddened the rest of us.

Below I am posting a photo of what these folks generally look like, from a publication announcing Britain's first Sikh high court judge.

One final thing - there is plenty of irony in this incident, as the three morons who demonstrated "patriotism" at its very ugliest became what they themselves professed to hate: terrorism.

[mf_dolphin]

These aren't patriots just idiots. We have to remember that nearly all of us Americans are immigrants....

[Guest]

These aren't patriots just idiots. We have to remember that nearly all of us Americans are immigrants....

Exactly, that's why I put patriots in quotes.

[Guest]

That's the main danger for all of us: a world divided in two.
"We" the goods, "them" the evils.
The rule will be "kill'em all, god will single out his own".

We live in a democracy, we defend life even when this mean put ourselves
in discussion.
We have our rules, we fight for them but we shall fight for them remaining inside them.

That's why I'm against war in Iraq.

[mf_dolphin]

You never say what should happen when people defy the rules and refuse to honor their own committments. Saddam had 12 years to live up the the UN mandates and did not. At some point the rules have to be enforced or they become immaterial.

[Guest]

Dear Marshall, you can't convince me that this war was to free poor iraquis or because Saddam's was a real thread to the world.
Saddam was not more dangerous than many, many others.
Let me ask some questions:
can u tell me why even if not a precise date was known, but "only" a precise period, nothing was due in order to enforce intelligence and counterterrorism actions and try, at least try, to avoid 9/11?
Who, including you all, was thinking about Saddam as one of the principals of 9/11 that day?
Why it was so necessary to attack Saddam? 9/11? First yes, then nope it's because after 12years of bla bla bla we must attack now. Why? he's got MDW and can use'em against the world in 45minutes. Ever used to defend himself? Nope. Ever found one? Nope. Quite strange in a war, USA itself did not hesitate to nuke Japan just to win (oh, I'm really an ungrateful wretch! That was avoiding me talking german today!).
Ok, let's attack Saddam then to resume democracy in Iraq. Democracy? What democracy? Democracy, our democracy is an empty word for them.
"War is over, 1st of may". Why are we still talking about war then?
Why are we still terribly scared that terrorism may hit everywhere, anytime, anyway? What results this so called "war on terror" gave us back? List them here below please.
Time will tell, hope we are going to have the time to read what it tells.

[Pburgh]

Jamie, I agree this is very sad. I know many Sikhs in the Pittsburgh area. Most of them are doctors. The ones that I know are kind, loving and gentle people. Many are American citizens.

I would never try to condone the actions of the uninformed idiots who approached your friends but one explanation could be that right after 9/11 we had an incident in Pittsburgh where men with turbans were having a very big party and celebrating the 9/11 attack and burning the American flag. Many of the folks around here can still remember this. They still react accordingly.

[Fishmn]

Just ignorant fools. I live in an area where Sikhs live and own stores and run gas stations. After 9/11 they put out flags and wrote signs on the windows explaining what they are. I saw more than one go out of business due to loss of patronage. I support them as I am educated enough to know that they are just trying to live the American dream like all of us.

[Stephanie]

I was afraid for them after 9/11 because I knew that there were alot of ignorant idiots out there that would take it out on these people. Thanks for the reminder Jamie!

[mf_dolphin]

can u tell me why even if not a precise date was known, but "only" a precise period, nothing was due in order to enforce intelligence and counterterrorism actions and try, at least try, to avoid 9/11?

I guess that's the $64,000 question. Unfortunately democracies have always been slow to respond to an impending threat. Pearl Harbor is a prime example. In that case we knew that the Japanese might try something and yet we were content to wait until they actually did. Call it the ostrich with it's head in the sand scenario. Add to that the lack of cooperation among our own intelligence agencies and the stage was set for 9-11.

Who, including you all, was thinking about Saddam as one of the principals of 9/11 that day?
Why it was so necessary to attack Saddam? 9/11? First yes, then nope it's because after 12years of bla bla bla we must attack now. Why? he's got MDW and can use'em against the world in 45minutes. Ever used to defend himself? Nope. Ever found one? Nope.

I shouldn't answer this since you failed to do me the courtesy of answering my question but I will anyway. I do not and did not then believe that Saddam had a direct role in 9-11. I do however belive that he was a threat to the vital interests of the United States. Giving him 12 years to comply with the UN resolutions following the first Gulf War was a travesty. The first time he failed to comply with the letter of the agreements following the first war he should have been punished severely. While I agree we haven't found any WMD in teh country there is no doubt that he had them following the first war. He admitted to it and they were documented by the UN inspectors. I remind you this was after years and years of denials that they existed. These weapons may not have been used against our troops but they were used against Iran, his own people in the south and the Kurds. Your refusal to admit that they existed is just a load of bunk. There are plenty of sources that back this up if you care to get your head out of the sand as well. Where did they go? I personally think that some are still in Iraq. The bulk were probably destroyed in the later stages of the war or shipped to Syria or Iran before it began. I have no proof but it's a logical assumption given the time he had to prepare before the actual invasion took place.[/quote]

Quite strange in a war, USA itself did not hesitate to nuke Japan just to win (oh, I'm really an ungrateful wretch! That was avoiding me talking german today!).

I guess you're not a student of history either. We did nuke Japan to end the war. There was little doubt at that point in time as to the outcome of the war. The only question was how many additional lives would be lost beofre that happened. I defy you to find any historian that would conclude that the use of nuclear weapons did not result in less lives being lost in the long run. I've studied WWII for more than 30 years and I haven't found a single source. Nuclear war is indeed a terrible thing and the devastation it brought to Japan should show the world that it should never be used again. That being said, do you think for one second that the extremists in the world would hesitate to use a nuclear device if they had one? I don't..[/quote]

Ok, let's attack Saddam then to resume democracy in Iraq. Democracy? What democracy? Democracy, our democracy is an empty word for them.
"War is over, 1st of may". Why are we still talking about war then?

Iraq has never had a democracy so I don't understand where you come up with resume democracy. Democracy will have to be learnedin Iraq as it's been learned in every other free country. They will make some mistakes and hopefully they will learn from them. The reason we are still talking war is because it's not over. The former regieme is going to try and hold power through any means necessary and other fcations are attempting to grab power in the emerging new Iraq. This should not be a surprise to anyone.

Why are we still terribly scared that terrorism may hit everywhere, anytime, anyway? What results this so called "war on terror" gave us back? List them here below please.
Time will tell, hope we are going to have the time to read what it tells.

Why are we scared still? Simple, when an animal is hunted the most dangerous time is when he's cornered. We are hunting these animals down across the world. They've been allowed to fester across the globe and it's long overdue that we ( as in the world ) put a stop to this type of behavior. It will come with a terrible price for sure but one that has to be paid sooner or later. I for one had rather fight this battle in their back yard as opposed to ours. Yes, there will be more attacks and more violence but in the end they will not be able to sustain the battle.

[Lindaloo]

Dear Marshall, you can't convince me that this war was to free poor iraquis or because Saddam's was a real thread to the world.
Saddam was not more dangerous than many, many others.
Let me ask some questions:
can u tell me why even if not a precise date was known, but "only" a precise period, nothing was due in order to enforce intelligence and counterterrorism actions and try, at least try, to avoid 9/11?
Who, including you all, was thinking about Saddam as one of the principals of 9/11 that day?
Why it was so necessary to attack Saddam? 9/11? First yes, then nope it's because after 12years of bla bla bla we must attack now. Why? he's got MDW and can use'em against the world in 45minutes. Ever used to defend himself? Nope. Ever found one? Nope. Quite strange in a war, USA itself did not hesitate to nuke Japan just to win (oh, I'm really an ungrateful wretch! That was avoiding me talking german today!).
Ok, let's attack Saddam then to resume democracy in Iraq. Democracy? What democracy? Democracy, our democracy is an empty word for them.
"War is over, 1st of may". Why are we still talking about war then?
Why are we still terribly scared that terrorism may hit everywhere, anytime, anyway? What results this so called "war on terror" gave us back? List them here below please.
Time will tell, hope we are going to have the time to read what it tells.

Not the WMD's again. He had them. He gassed his own people killing thousands and he even used them on our own troops during the Gulf War. So there is no question he had them! He played cat and mouse games with the UN and Clinton for too long and he had 12 years to hide them. Question is where are they? Syria? Iran?

He just thought he was going to play cat and mouse games with Bush.

And I agree, those people are indeed terrorists!!

Good post Jamie

[Stephanie]

Good post Marshall.

[Guest]

I shouldn't answer this since you failed to do me the courtesy of answering my question but I will anyway.

Sorry marshall, cannot really remember when and where I failed to answer. Can you pls refresh me? Apologises for any misbehaviour, too many forums and mailing lists probably. I should at least pretend to work every now and then, but discussions are sooo attractive...

[Rainband]

Sad that after 911 some people have hatred for all foreigners, especially those from the middle east or those who resemble them. There is good and bad in every people. The people you spoke about threatening your friend give "humans" a bad name. Tell your friend we all aren't that narrow minded and hateful

[Guest]

Sad that after 911 some people have hatred for all foreigners, especially those from the middle east or those who resemble them. There is good and bad in every people. The people you spoke about threatening your friend give "humans" a bad name. Tell your friend we all aren't that narrow minded and hateful

Oh, no, he's well aware that we are a good bunch here in America, especially since he is part of that bunch.

[azskyman]

I'm saddened to remind you that there have been hate crimes, including murder, against Sikhs here in Phoenix. Perception, not reality, leads to these kinds of crimes. Driven by passion and revenge, the Sikhs are easy targets for their dress and appearance.

Perhaps the most positive outgrowth of the murder of Balbir Singh Sodhi were the 3,000 or so people of all races and religions who paid honor and tribute to him after his death.

This country is comprised of virtually all immigrants from all countries and races...and for all we claim to welcome each of them, there are those who see themselves as threatened by "the different."

The same theme runs through the fiber of many countries...Iraq being but one among many. A difference, however, is that hatred of people is neither taught nor encouraged here. We instead choose to disavow and dismember the mechanisms through which hatred grows.

While war is not always surgical in nature, no country on earth is more mindful of saving lives and rebuilding hope for those who are victims of regimes that inspire hatred.

We need only look to our past to see just how committed we are to rebuilding lifelines and resurrecting hope in Japan, in Afghanistan, and so many other countries once considered as arch enemies.

Angry Iraqis fear our commitment to success and ability to instill hope in a land where little has existed. A more safe and secure Iraq scares those who would choose intimidation to rule instead.

Ironic, in a way, that the death and anger that persists among a persecuted people is the result of fear. Fear brought them to submission under Saddam. Fear that change might lead to stability and new opportunity is their boldest enemy still.

[Rainband]

Sad that after 911 some people have hatred for all foreigners, especially those from the middle east or those who resemble them. There is good and bad in every people. The people you spoke about threatening your friend give "humans" a bad name. Tell your friend we all aren't that narrow minded and hateful

Oh, no, he's well aware that we are a good bunch here in America, especially since he is part of that bunch.

Exactly

[roarusdogus]

Not the WMD's again. He had them.

I didn't realize you were there and saw the WMDs. I guess I can't argue with you since you were there and saw them.

[Willh]

Not the WMD's again. He had them. He gassed his own people killing thousands and he even used them on our own troops during the Gulf War. So there is no question he had them! He played cat and mouse games with the UN and Clinton for too long and he had 12 years to hide them. Question is where are they? Syria? Iran?

He just thought he was going to play cat and mouse games with Bush.

And I agree, those people are indeed terrorists!!

Good post Jamie

Plenty of leaders have done the same thing...yet Iraq is the one we're persuing.
What of North Korea?